On Thu, 19. Jul 11:09, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:42:07 +0200 > Radostan Riedel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 18. Jul 15:15, Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote: > > > In that case we should work with the cbf maintainer and see if the > > > python binding could be package on its own, do > > > 1) check that both cbf python binding are equivalent > > CCTBX provides a more recent version of cbflib. But the python bindings are > > building with the provided setup.py. It creates a _pycbf.so extension. > > you should fill also a bug for the new version :) I know but there already is a wishlist Bug#594600 for the new upstream version.
> can you provide a compile option for this until we solved the libcbf package > issue. > so it will be easy for use to switch from the bundeled pycbf and the official > pycbf. You mean like: --with_pycbf It's not a problem to skip the build since no other extension depends on the pycbf module during the build. I did a 'grep' and the only file in cctbx depending during runtime is cbflib_adaptbx/command_line/dump.py and this looks like it's part of a dispatcher script. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
